The Yugoslav Elections: Predicted Scenarios and the U.S. Response

Balkans Forum, October 16, 2000, Washington, D.C.

When the Balkans Forum was launched in September, little did the participants
imagine that when the Forum reconvened on October 16, Serbia would have a
radically altered political landscape. Last month we heard former ambassador to
Yugoslavia Warren Zimmermann describe President Milosevic as the main obstacle
to peace and democratic change in the Balkans region -- one that would not be
easily removed. What a difference a few weeks makes. After a bloodless
revolution, Milosevic is at long last out of power, and Serbia has a new
president, opposition leader Vojislav Kostunica.

Addressing our October forum, speakers Harold Hongju Koh and Aleksa Djilas concurred that
Kostunica's victory marked a significant step toward peace and democratic reform
in the former Yugoslavia. However, they differed in the amount of credit they
were willing to assign the United States for that outcome. Koh, who serves as
Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, argued that
U.S. efforts to promote democracy in the region were already yielding promising
results, such as Croatia's new law supporting the return of all refugees
regardless of ethnic background. Djilas, author of The Contested Country:
Yugoslav Unity and Communist Revolution, 1919-1953 and currently a public
policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, critized
aspects of U.S. policy toward Serbia, especially its role in the 1999 NATO
bombing.

But the two speakers as well as the forum participants agreed that in any
case, the new president's power would be sorely limited for the foreseeable
future, expressing concern about the region's continuing economic, political,
and social problems.

Specifically, forum participants discussed:

Kostunica's surprise victory

Most Western analysts, including those who attended last month's Balkans
Forum, expected Milosevic to win Serbia's October elections. Forum participants
said the West had failed to take into account the interplay of several key
factors:

Impact of external aid. The U.S. government provided an estimated $77
million to strengthen the democratic opposition in Serbia. The money was
invested in institution building, education, and technical assistance.
Meanwhile, U.S.-based NGOs like the National Democratic Institute, which is funded by the U.S.
Agency for International Development, provided training for Serbian activists
and voters as well as conducting public opinion polls prior to Serbia's
parliamentary elections.

Western media and diplomatic communications blitz. Through various
means, the West was able to telegraph a clear and consistent message to the
Serbian people that the defeat of Milosevic would result in the lifting of the
economic embargo and the reestablishment of Serbia's diplomatic relations with
the international community.

The vitality and determination of the Serbian opposition. The real
impetus for change came from the Serbian people themselves, something Western
observers completely underestimated. Polling data from a year ago demonstrate
widespread unhappiness with the former leader, who stepped up his repression
campaign in the wake of the 1999 NATO bombing. In response, Serbia's eight
opposition parties formed a coalition, which then held massive public meetings
and demonstrations promoting a single message: non-violent social change.

The next steps

According to most forum participants, the next steps toward democratic
consolidation in Serbia must include:

the end of repression;

the promotion and support of a free media;

the promotion and support of an open society; and

a new government consisting not soley of experts but also of people who
participated in the revolution.

From a U.S. perspective, it is important for the new Yugoslav leadership to
signal its intention to honor the Dayton Accords, other prior agreements, and
international norms. Meanwhile, the international community can offer Serbia its
patience as well as a long-term commitment of aid.

Future challenges

Forum participants concurred on the top three areas of major concern
demanding policy makers' immediate attention:

The future of Montenegro and Kosovo. The United States supports a
Yugoslav federation in which Serbia seeks political solutions to its problems
with its reluctant junior partner, Montenegro, and with Kosovo. As far as Kosovo
is concerned, the United States continues to back UN Security Council Resolution 1244.
Likewise, the United States still favors a democratic Montenegro within a
democratic Yugoslavia. Kostunica's announcement of a new round of parliamentary
elections in December will hopefully provide an opportunity for Montenegrans to
participate in the Serbian federal government.

Prospects for democracy. There are many challenges to democratic
reform across the region. Kosovo -- now one of the most homogeneous societies in
the Balkans -- has major problems resulting from increased organized crime. On
the positive side of the equation, displaced Kosovars are now returning, schools
have reopened, progress has been made toward disarming the Kosovo Liberation
Army, and the independent media has been revived. Serbia cannot of course
resolve the issue of Kosovo alone. Albanians and other actors in the region must
work with the Serbs to prevent a relapse into violent conflict.

The fate of former President Milosevic.The International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has indicted Milosevic as a war criminal.
Most forum participants agreed that Milosevic's conduct toward Kosovo Albanians
makes him guilty of crimes against humanity and that he should be tried in the
Hague. However, one participant demurred, expressing concern that the Tribunal
-- similar to NATO -- was essentially a creation of the United States, thus
would apply justice inconsistently. (It is inconceivable for a U.S. or NATO
soldier to be indicted by the court.) Another participant charged that the
international tribunal has not targeted other Balkans leaders who are known to
have committed crimes because it is not in American interests to do so.

In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, Michael
Ignatieff argued that the key to Milosevic's fate lies not in blackmailing the
new government but in convincing the Serbian people that the charges against
their former leader are justified, thus that handing him over to the ICTY is in
the country's long-term interests. Citing this article, one participant
cautioned that while the international community is right to support President
Kostunica and the process of democracy in Yugoslavia, it should not do so at the
expense of justice.

The Balkans Forum was a series of monthly dialogues co-sponsored
by Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, Search for Common Ground, and the Center for
Eurasian, Russian and Eastern European Studies at the Edmund Walsh School of
Foreign Service, Georgetown University. This brief was prepared by staff at the
Council's former Conflict and Prevention Program and at the Search for Common
Ground. The opinions expressed at the forum do not necessarily reflect those of
the sponsoring organizations.

Related

The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.